Tailwind/Cougar??
anonymous
Cougar. At a quick glance they look alike. I know some of the history of the
Tailwind (designed by Steve Wittman, etc.) but I would like to know how the
Cougar came to be. Thanks.
Stealth Pilot
wrote:
isnt the nesmith cougar based on the tailwind but with the builders
better ideas and a folding wing.
basically it is the epitome of experimental.
BOb U
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ho-ho.
Sez who?
First you ask a question based on less than full knowledge and
then make your unequivacle pronouncement. <g>
This is a laughable, not because it may not be so....
But, because you have such audacity to singularly say it is so
in the face of such bufoonery.
BOb U
Jim Vandervort
assa9
Stealth Pilot <tail...@ieyenetdotnetdotau.spurious> wrote in message
news:3c307cb1...@news.m.iinet.net.au...
EDS
guynoir
1958, which immediately created a market for a cheap knock-off.
At least, that's the story I heard.
I'm waiting for someone to knock-off the $600 plans for the Sonex.
anonymous wrote:
--
John Kimmel
guy...@teleport.com
"If you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow."
Tony Spicer
>
> Steve Whitman originally sold plans for his Tailwind for $250, a princely sum in
> 1958, which immediately created a market for a cheap knock-off.
>
> At least, that's the story I heard.
>
> I'm waiting for someone to knock-off the $600 plans for the Sonex.
Is that when you plan to buy? By any chance, do you drive a Yugo?
Tony
Dan Thomas
according to the numbers I have here it didn't cruise any faster than
the Tailwind in spite of having more power. I believe that this is due
to the fact that Wittman's name isn't on it, and so Wittman's magic
isn't in it.
Never having flown either of them, I can't comment on handling
differences, but I do think the Tailwind is a more popular airplane.
Dan
Richard Lamb
Very docile low speed and really moves out top end.
But the best part is the price.
--
Richard Lamb
email: lam...@flash.net
Texas Parasol web page: http://www.flash.net/~lamb01
Stealth Pilot
Bob the basis of experimental is experimentation.
the guy thought he could do better and had a go at it.
what do you find so hard to grasp in that?
The "question" actually wasnt one at all. it is merely the turn of
phrase our local idiom causes us to use for a tentative answer.
me personally I'd build a clone of the W8 I've been flying.
once you spend the 100 hours to master them they are wonderfully
practical aircraft.
The one I fly has some subtle mods that add up to make it a superb
aircraft. it has 6 hours endurance, ie. 3 hours reserve after a 3 hour
cross country leg.
anyway make sure you keep up with your medication mate.
Stealth Pilot
The Blakers
all it I got was a poor set of Tailwind plans. Nesmith, who
was a rich Houston oilman, got pissed off at Steve for the
exorbitant prices he charged (most plans cost 25 to 50
dollars back then) so he bought one copy, had them
copied and sold them for $25 to anybody that wanted them
and dared Steve to sue him.
J&DKahn
johnk
"Tony Spicer" <spi...@wilmington.net> wrote in message
news:3C30EF...@wilmington.net...
guynoir
Model
Cost
Whitman W-10 Tailwind $180
Nesmith Cougar
$125
RV-series
$275
Midget
Mustang
$120
Mustang
II
$195
Hummelbird
$180
Coot
$250
Nieuport 11
$139
Nieuport 12
$200
Osprey II
$250
GP-4
$385
Sonex
$600
Jurca Spitfire, 75%
$500
Jurca Spitfire, 100%
$3750
So, what exactly is Sonex selling that's worth more than twice as much as an RV-8?
J&DKahn wrote:
$600 is less than $100 in 1958 dollars.johnk
--
BOb U
First we start with this from you...
>>>isnt the nesmith cougar based on the tailwind but with the builders
>>>better ideas and a folding wing. - Stealth Pilot
. ^^^^^^^^^
>Bob the basis of experimental is experimentation.
>the guy thought he could do better and had a go at it.
>what do you find so hard to grasp in that?
>Stealth Pilot
My 'grasp' was doing very well last time I had it checked.
Your ability to convey clearly and factually, OTOH, is problematic.
Perhaps you should have clearly stated 'DIFFERENT ideas'....
rather than BETTER.
As further proof of how 'off the wall' your diatribe can be:
From a 3rd party's assessment of Nesmith' BETTER IDEAS....
"Agree with Tony. I built a Cougar 'way back in the 60's and
all it I got was a poor set of Tailwind plans. Nesmith, who
was a rich Houston oilman, got pissed off at Steve for the
exorbitant prices he charged (most plans cost 25 to 50
dollars back then) so he bought one copy, had them
copied and sold them for $25 to anybody that wanted them
and dared Steve to sue him." - The Blakers
BOb U
>>First you ask a question based on less than full knowledge and
>>then make your unequivacle pronouncement. <g>
>>
>>BOb U
>
>unequi.......What?
>
>Ed Sullivan
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It there not other fodder and cud fer you mavens to chew on? <g>
fod·der
1. Feed for livestock, especially coarsely chopped hay or straw. 2. Raw
material, as for artistic creation.
cud
n. 1. Food regurgitated from the first stomach to the mouth of a ruminant and
chewed again.
ma·ven also ma·vin ( m³“v…n) n. 1. A person who has special knowledge or
experience; an expert.
unequivacle = unequivocal
1. clear and unambiguous
BOb - clear and unambiguous - U
BOb U
>>>First you ask a question based on less than full knowledge and
>>>then make your unequivacle pronouncement. <g>
>
>>>
>>>BOb U
>>
>>unequi.......What?
>>
>>Ed Sullivan
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>It there not other fodder and cud fer you mavens to chew on? <g>
^^^
Tony Spicer
>
> Cost comparison as of today:
>
> Model Cost
> Whitman W-10 Tailwind $180
> Nesmith Cougar $125
> RV-series $275
> Midget Mustang $120
> Mustang II $195
> Hummelbird $180
> Coot $250
> Nieuport 11 $139
> Nieuport 12 $200
> Osprey II $250
> GP-4 $385
> Sonex $600
> Jurca Spitfire, 75% $500
> Jurca Spitfire, 100% $3750
>
> So, what exactly is Sonex selling that's worth more than twice as much
> as an RV-8?
Only those that are not Sonex plansholders complain about the price. I
doubt you could find one of the 420+ plansholders that thinks he paid
too much. The plans set consists of 100+ "D" size CAD drawings. The
airplane can be built from what's on the plans- no construction manual
required. Also included in the plans price is a two day builders
workshop.
Tony
Stealth Pilot
>
>
>First we start with this from you...
>
>>>>isnt the nesmith cougar based on the tailwind but with the builders
>>>>better ideas and a folding wing. - Stealth Pilot
>. ^^^^^^^^^
>
>>Bob the basis of experimental is experimentation.
>>the guy thought he could do better and had a go at it.
>>what do you find so hard to grasp in that?
>
>>Stealth Pilot
>
>My 'grasp' was doing very well last time I had it checked.
>Your ability to convey clearly and factually, OTOH, is problematic.
>Perhaps you should have clearly stated 'DIFFERENT ideas'....
>rather than BETTER.
ahhh stop wanking Bob. maybe I should have put "better" in quotes but
hell you guys are the land of fake performance claims, dont you always
take someones claim of "better" with a grain of salt until proven?
>
>As further proof of how 'off the wall' your diatribe can be:
>From a 3rd party's assessment of Nesmith' BETTER IDEAS....
put "better" in quotes. the differences didnt prove to add up to much.
>
>"Agree with Tony. I built a Cougar 'way back in the 60's and
>all it I got was a poor set of Tailwind plans. Nesmith, who
>was a rich Houston oilman, got pissed off at Steve for the
>exorbitant prices he charged (most plans cost 25 to 50
>dollars back then) so he bought one copy, had them
>copied and sold them for $25 to anybody that wanted them
>and dared Steve to sue him." - The Blakers
>
>
Bob I actually have access to a set of cougar plans but they are 50 km
away in the club library. I had a look at them about 3 months ago and
was going to retrieve them this sunday..
there is sufficient difference between the plans that I dont believe
that comment at face value. maybe the plans have enough commonality
that Wittman would have felt threatened but they are not identical,
The Cougar after all has a folding wing. as I recall it was also
noteworthy for having a bigger engine installed than I recall wittman
ever using.
in an argument between them I can fully imagine Nesmith putting that
point of view. Nesmith was entirely justified in marketing his plans
any way he liked. he had done some original work in a number of areas
to make a "better" aircraft.
anyway, back in your box bob. the purpose of these posts is to provide
the guy making the original request with some info, or spark someone
elses memory, not to have inane arguments with you.
Stealth Pilot
Stealth Pilot
wrote:
>Steve Whitman originally sold plans for his Tailwind for $250, a princely sum in
>1958, which immediately created a market for a cheap knock-off.
>
>At least, that's the story I heard.
>
>I'm waiting for someone to knock-off the $600 plans for the Sonex.
>
before you knock off a set of sonex plans check on the availability of
hollow titanium tube. it is used in the u/c legs and tailspring.
my brother has a set of plans which I've had a good look over.
the plans set is a QUALITY effort and worth the money.
out of respect for the guy's work I'd be saving up and buying a legit
copy.
just my opinion mind ya.
Stealth Pilot
Tony Spicer
> before you knock off a set of sonex plans check on the availability of
> hollow titanium tube. it is used in the u/c legs and tailspring.
> my brother has a set of plans which I've had a good look over.
> the plans set is a QUALITY effort and worth the money.
> out of respect for the guy's work I'd be saving up and buying a legit
> copy.
> just my opinion mind ya.
> Stealth Pilot
Not exactly correct. The main gear is a 1 1/8" solid titanium rod. The
item that will force you to Sonex, Ltd, is the proprietary extrusion
from which the main spar is constructed.
Tony
Stealth Pilot
ok I'll defer to your plans. I was certain it was hollow because I
discussed the availability of such an esoteric item with the bro'
even with his airforce contacts he thought he'd draw a blank in
sourcing it. (I'll have to read plans without the beer next time :-) )
no matter though, the guy has done his work in the establishing of the
kit and deserves the respect.
stealtho.
BOb U
>anyway, back in your box bob. the purpose of these posts is to provide
>the guy making the original request with some info, or spark someone
>elses memory, not to have inane arguments with you.
>Stealth Pilot
Factual info is one thing.
Opinion dressed up in your particular brand of spin at times is quite another.
Therefore, my rebuttal might be only inane to you and others of your ilk.
Apparently, dialog that you define as having no sense or substance...
is your irresistible candy. If you could quit, you would have on this and other
threads where you respond to me.
Anytime you feel you have made a good case, there is no need to respond unless
there are some loose ends you feel compelled to defend. The ensuing dialogs just
might be insightful to some newbie who might otherwise take your spin at face
value. You may not find my style efficient or whatever, but it ain't yer call.
SOoooo..
Let's make one thing perfectly clear.
I twist no arms in search of replies.
If you're addicted to respond...
that urge lies within yourself, not me.
Police thyself, wanker.
This box is closed.
Adios.
BOb - takes 2 to tango - U
Jim Vandervort
assa9
Stealth Pilot <tail...@ieyenetdotnetdotau.spurious> wrote in message
news:3c330ff7...@news.m.iinet.net.au...
Richard Lamb
--
Morgans
BOb U <N86...@hotmail.net> wrote in message
news:pmq53uovomkspmc7n...@4ax.com...
>
> >>First you ask a question based on less than full knowledge and
> >>then make your unequivacle pronouncement. <g>
>
> >>
> >>BOb U
> >
> >unequi.......What?
> >
> >Ed Sullivan
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> It there not other fodder and cud fer you mavens to chew on? <g>
>
> fod·der
> 1. Feed for livestock, especially coarsely chopped hay or straw. 2. Raw
> material, as for artistic creation.
>
> cud
> n. 1. Food regurgitated from the first stomach to the mouth of a ruminant
and
> chewed again.
>
> experience; an expert.
>
> unequivacle = unequivocal
> 1. clear and unambiguous
___________________________________________________________
Why not throw in the definiton of unambiguous, too. I hate it when a
definition has a bigger word in it thean the "definition-ee". <ggg>
Jim in NC
Jim Vandervort
it is --- Steve
assa9
Richard Lamb <lam...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:3C339682...@flash.net...
Richard Lamb
BOb U
>> It there not other fodder and cud fer you mavens to chew on? <g>
>>
>> fod·der
>> 1. Feed for livestock, especially coarsely chopped hay or straw. 2. Raw
>> material, as for artistic creation.
>>
>> cud
>> n. 1. Food regurgitated from the first stomach to the mouth of a ruminant
>and
>> chewed again.
>>
>> ma·ven also ma·vin ( mł"v.n) n. 1. A person who has special knowledge or
>> experience; an expert.
>>
>> unequivacle = unequivocal
>> 1. clear and unambiguous
>
>___________________________________________________________
>
>Why not throw in the definiton of unambiguous, too. I hate it when a
>definition has a bigger word in it thean the "definition-ee". <ggg>
>
>Jim in NC
Sio sorry.
We do aim to please - just like a guy that....
writes Happy New Year in the snow while flushing his kidneys.
Drum roll, pleez......
un·am·big·u·ous
adj. 1. Having or exhibiting no ambiguity. <g>
BOb - what did you expect - U
Jim Vandervort
assa9
Richard Lamb <lam...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:3C33EFD5...@flash.net...
Highflyer
When you consider the work involved in designing an airplane and drawing
up a decent set of plans for it, and set that cost against the potential
market for plans ...
I don't know anyone who got rich from plans sales, at any price. But
the designer certainly deserves more than the cost of making a copy!
--
Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
J&DKahn
"Highflyer" <high...@alt.net> wrote in message
news:3C3491F7...@alt.net...
My only gripe about the Sonex on the plans price is that the builder seminar
is built into it (a couple hundred bucks worth) and not everybody needs the
seminar or can get to the seminar. Attending the seminar may cost another
$500 to $1,000 or more depending on how you get there. Plans for $400
without the seminar would be nice to see, although I can see that he is
trying to coerce as many plans buyers as possible to attend by making paying
for it mandatory.
I expect the mandatory seminar, aside from making sure that builders use the
best practices, is a helpful part of Monnet's liability arrangements.
I would've started on one if I thought I could fit in it. I sat in the
prototype at Ohs several years ago and it's not meant for 6 footers with
short legs (32") and long spines like me. The round canopy makes the
headroom much less than it seems. Monnet's response to me pointing out the
lack of head room was a curt, "Your back's too long. Sit in the middle."
Other than that it is a brillaint design.
johnk
Stealth Pilot
wrote:
>What is/are the differences between a Wittman Tailwind and the Nesmith
>Cougar. At a quick glance they look alike. I know some of the history of the
>Tailwind (designed by Steve Wittman, etc.) but I would like to know how the
>Cougar came to be. Thanks.
>
>
Anonymous is a very famous name ranking just behind Smith and Jones in
popularity, did you know that :-)
Nesmith, I have discovered didnt develop the folding wing. The
Aircraft Spruce catalogue has a writeup which attributes the folding
wing to Leonard Eaves in 1963. The Cougar surfaced in the mid 50's.
The tailwind plans are dated 1952.
I have boths sets of plans on the floor beside my feet as I write
this.
The Cougar uses a screwjack to adjust the elevator trim in flight
(like a piper cub), The Tailwind uses a spring bias.
The cougar fuselage is near identical but has some structural
differences. the trussing right at the tail is different to accomodate
the screwjack support. the trussing in the cockpit roof is also
different.
the longeron in every bay of the cougar fuselage is a different tube
size, the tailwind just uses one tube size for the forward area and
behind the cabin is the one size all the way back.
Elevators are cosmetically different, structure is the same.
Rudder is trussed slightly differently but is close to being the same
as the tailwind.
Firewalls are the same size (ie the fulselage width is the same)
The wings look pretty well the same. the cougar does not have flaps
though. the tailwind has flaps that are quite effective.
Cougar wing panel is 100.5" long with a 48" chord.
The W8 wing panel is 11ft long with a 47.25" chord.
The tailwind uses wittman's patent double taper spring leg which is
quite effective. The cougar uses a totally different leg which inserts
into a horizontal tube in the fuselage. all the fore and aft u/c
twisting is constrained by a pair of half inch bolts in double shear.
hmmm.
the wittman drawings have a number of tailwheel setups. flat spring,
round taper leg etc. the round taper leg is quite effective btw.
the cougar has a dopey tailwheel setup that must hammer the aft
fuselage a bit. imho
The wittman has centre controls. these by default are in a "T". some
people ditch this and use a Y to give a normal stick on each side as
is done in the Jodels.
The cougar has a proper stick on each side of the cockpit.
other than that the controls are setup in a very similar manner.
Cougar plans come in 10 sheets slightly larger than A3.
The Tailwind has about 22 sheets. (mine is a combined W8, W10
planset.)
The cougar approaches and lands 10 knots faster than the tailwind.
approach speeds; cougar 80, tailwind 70
weights are pretty well the same, 620-700lbs empty, 1250lbs max
wing span; cougar 20ft 3.5", tailwind 22ft half an inch.
height; cougar 5ft 6", tailwind 5ft 3"
length; cougar 18ft 10 5/8", tailwind 19ft 3"
personally I'd build a W8 tailwind but and in the control sticks and
screwjack elevator trim from the cougar.
so there you go.
Stealth Pilot
Morgans
Stealth Pilot <tail...@ieyenetdotnetdotau.spurious> wrote in message
Snip some good stuff
> personally I'd build a W8 tailwind but and in the control sticks and
> screwjack elevator trim from the cougar.
>
> so there you go.
> Stealth Pilot
Good post. Thanks for looking it all up, and writing it down.
Jim in NC
Don Lewis
> Aircraft Spruce catalogue has a writeup which attributes the folding
> wing to Leonard Eaves in 1963. The Cougar surfaced in the mid 50's.
> The tailwind plans are dated 1952.
Leonard Eaves designed the folding wing adaptation for the EAA
"roadable aircraft design contest" of 1960. None were finished so the
contest was delayed for a couple of years. There were several designs entered. Gene Turner
of Ft Worth, TX designed, built and entered the
Turner T-40 and there were several others ( maybe Neal Loving's
Loving's Love, a low wing inverted gullwing design ) Pete Bowers won
with the Fly Baby...
*********************************
> The Cougar uses a screwjack to adjust the elevator trim in flight
> (like a piper cub), The Tailwind uses a spring bias.
******************************
Most of the early Tailwinds I remember used a piece of flat plate
but welded to the leading edge tube of the horizontal stab. bolted to one of a vertical
series of holes in the side of the fuselage. ( There were some accidents due to poor weld
joints )
Pricing: As I remember it, Whitman sold the first and last set of the plans he sold for
$180... Never changed...
I do not remember Nesmith ever selling the plans.... Leonard Eaves
sold them for $20...I don't know if Leonard bought the rights to the
Cougar or how it came about... I do know Nesmith was working
on a 4 place version something like Whittman's Big X. The Insurance
companies forced him to stop flying experimantal aircraft or step
down as CEO of his oil firm. He gave up the homebuilts....
************************
Side note: There was another Tailwind look alike called the
Daphine from some where in the southeast. Maybe Georga?
Had Tailwind fuselage with a Clark Y type airfoil in a rag wing.
Was surprisingly fast.... I think there is one here in the FTW
area....
******************************
Sometime in the 70's Leonard built a low wing aircraft...
looks like a low wing cougar with an aluminum wing....Lost it in
the OKC tornado about three years ago; destroyed the hangar
and blew the plane across the airport at Tuttle,OK. Really rolled it up in a ball. I saw
him at the Gainesville, TX antique flying this last June flying
a rebuilt version of it. When I ask him how much he was able to reuse
out of the first plane, he said "engine and instruments" It is worth
noting Leonard is in his very late 70's or more likely 80's and he
built and flew the second version in just about 24 months.
pretty impressive..
I have a picture of the plane I took there.. If anyone wants a
copy; e-mail me for one...
Don Lewis n FTW
Take out the *REMOVE* to e-mail me direct
Dan Thomas
what's the difference between the W8 and W10?
Dan
Ron Wanttaja
> Leonard Eaves designed the folding wing adaptation for the EAA
> "roadable aircraft design contest" of 1960. None were finished so the
> contest was delayed for a couple of years.
Nope. The Fly Baby *was* finished, and was the only contestant that
showed up in flying condition. They decided to postpone the contest for
two years to get more entrants.
About two months before the 1962 convention, the Fly Baby was crashed in
a fuel-exhaustion incident in the mountains. A whole new fuselage (six
inches longer) was built in time to get the airplane to Oshkosh and win
the contest.
2002 is the 40th anniversary of the Fly Baby's victory, and the Fly Baby
community will be celebrating. Since we have relatively short-legged
beasts, we're trying to set up gatherings at various places across the
country. Pinkneyville will be one, and the Arlington Fly-In will be the
big one. I'm hoping to get ten Fly Babies in attendance for it.
You can order T-Shirts and whatnot via:
http://home1.gte.net/ikvamar/flybaby/goodies.htm
Ron Wanttaja
www.wanttaja.com
Richard Lamb
the 50th anniversary of the Tailwind.
It was the first two seat homebuilt and the first Experimental
catagory airplane that could carry non-crew members (passengers!),
For me personally, 2002 is the year I hope to hang the engine on
my W-10 project.
"May you always have a Tailwind"
Stealth Pilot
>Appreciate the detailed comparison. Thanks for taking the time. Now,
>what's the difference between the W8 and W10?
the W8 is the pretty one and the W10 is.... :-)
the W10 is 3" longer overall
the tailplanes and rudder are more squared off.
the wing has some triangular extensions at the tips that are supposed
to improve performance, they increase the wingspan by one and a half
feet. the wing area curiously doesnt change at 90 sq ft.
the engine is usually an O-320.
empty weight is 140 lb heavier.
the fuselage trussing is a little different right under the tail.
the main gear legs dont change between the versions. on Terry's W10
the increased weight makes the gear appear to be more sproingy. I
guess it is always just a little more loaded than on the W8.
I'd say it would need to be flown faster and performance/handling
would degrade similar to the W8 when at max weight (or heavier ).
When heavy the W8 becomes a little piggish at slower speeds, the sink
rate increases and the flare outs become harder to judge.
To me the W10 would seem a little more susceptible to bending the main
gear.
I've never flown a W10 so I'm basing this on W8 flying experiences
and watching Terry refuel his W10.
Stealth Pilot
Don Lewis
: For me personally, 2002 is the year I hope to hang the engine on
: my W-10 project.
: Richard Lamb
when are you going to post some pictures of your
w-10 project on your web site??????
Don
Owen Davies
> I'd say it would need to be flown faster and performance/handling
> would degrade similar to the W8 when at max weight (or heavier ).
> When heavy the W8 becomes a little piggish at slower speeds, the sink
> rate increases and the flare outs become harder to judge.
(Hah! Something other than--that is to say, in addition to--the
perpetual Zoom wars. You guys must have known I'd be stopping in
for my every-six-months lurk.)
I can't respond from personal experience, as my W10 plans are
still in the mailing tube, but at Sun 'N Fun in 1990 or '91, I talked
with a man who had rebuilt his 90-horse W8 two years earlier
and had taken the opportunity to convert to W10-style wings. He
said the change significantly reduced the landing speed and generally
made the Tailwind a lot sweeter to fly. In his view, the W8 was
a little short of wing area--and he'd been flying his since the early
1960s! At this point, I don't remember whether he just added the
truncated-triangle wing tips or built up all-new wings with the
modified airfoil.
Either way, SP, you should have more faith. Mr. Wittman would
not have bungled a design mod like that.
Owen Davies
Richard Lamb
until the new parasol is flying. There are only a few weeks
work to do on it, but I'm so slow it might take a few days more.
HoWever, it's going over to Tony's hanger to get the engine mount
and gear installed(!). But since Tony is doing it, I'm technically
ok here.
The progress on the parasol is down in the details now. Work Work
Work and still really have nothing to photograph!
--
Stealth Pilot
wrote:
>I can't respond from personal experience, as my W10 plans are
>still in the mailing tube, but at Sun 'N Fun in 1990 or '91, I talked
>with a man who had rebuilt his 90-horse W8 two years earlier
>and had taken the opportunity to convert to W10-style wings. He
>said the change significantly reduced the landing speed and generally
>made the Tailwind a lot sweeter to fly. In his view, the W8 was
>a little short of wing area--and he'd been flying his since the early
>1960s! At this point, I don't remember whether he just added the
>truncated-triangle wing tips or built up all-new wings with the
>modified airfoil.
>
>Either way, SP, you should have more faith. Mr. Wittman would
>not have bungled a design mod like that.
>
>Owen Davies
>
>
just on design mods.
do any of you guys know where to get a copy of the aluminium wing plan
for the tailwind?
I know that there is a plan in existence but have no clues as to where
to obtain a copy.
Stealth Pilot
Ray Leonard
The price of titanium should be coming down. Last year I read
about a new, cheaper refining process. Wally World has tapered
ti tubing in the form of pool cues for $30 US.
Ray
David Magaw
http://www.chlassociates.com/Aviation/tailwind.htm
Look under the "Classified Advertising" and go to the "Plans and Sketches"
section. Under there you will find the Callbie Woods Aluminum Wings, and
address to get plans or further information.
Dave
Tailwind W-8+ (N202Q)
"Stealth Pilot" <tail...@ieyenetdotnetdotau.spurious> wrote in message
news:3c3b03bd...@news.m.iinet.net.au...
Stealth Pilot
wrote:
>Go to the unofficial Tailwind Site
>http://www.chlassociates.com/Aviation/tailwind.htm
>Look under the "Classified Advertising" and go to the "Plans and Sketches"
>section. Under there you will find the Callbie Woods Aluminum Wings, and
>address to get plans or further information.
>
>Dave
>Tailwind W-8+ (N202Q)
>
thanks dave I've been looking for that for a year now.
missed the section when I looked on the unofficial site.
Chris Boultinghouse
> tail...@ieyenetdotnetdotau.spurious (Stealth Pilot) wrote:
> >before you knock off a set of sonex plans check on the availability of
> >hollow titanium tube. it is used in the u/c legs and tailspring.
> >my brother has a set of plans which I've had a good look over.
> >the plans set is a QUALITY effort and worth the money.
> >out of respect for the guy's work I'd be saving up and buying a legit
> >copy.
> >just my opinion mind ya.
> >Stealth Pilot
Actually, it's solid titanium rod for the gear legs and tailspring.
And I completely agree: Buy the legit plans! If you are going to spend
twenty or thirty THOUSAND dollars to build an airplane, why gripe
about spending a few hundred for the plans? It's a tiny percentage of
the cost, and represents thousands of hours of work by the designer.
Besides that, if you buy knock-off Sonex plans (assuming they
existed), where are you going to buy the spar cap material? It's a
custom extrusion, sold only by Sonex, Ltd. If you don't have legit
plans they aren't going to sell you spar caps.
Chris B.
Sonex #260
http://sonex260.murkworks.com